The main reason the governors can't buck medicaid expansion is that hospitals would be screwed financially, as that article points out.

But there's also a political reality. Obamacare is going to provide health care to families who make more than about 20K via subsidies. Those under about 20K are to get medicaid. How can they sustain a policy where the government provides healthcare to people above poverty, but not below? That would be too bizarre for most people to accept.

Some of these same folks are way on board with the idea of the primary care physician as an endangered species. Medical care was a considerable expense back in 1991 and is absurdly more expensive today. Why are we pissing on teachers, snowplow drivers, etc.? Divide and conquer has its consequences.

Mad Howler wrote: Some of these same folks are way on board with the idea of the primary care physician as an endangered species. Medical care was a considerable expense back in 1991 and is absurdly more expensive today. Why are we pissing on teachers, snowplow drivers, etc.? Divide and conquer has its consequences.

You are playing divide and conqueor too. The only difference is you have defined physicians as the bad people.

Ya, some physicians are conservatives, pro-Walker. So what? How is that even relevant to a discussion about whether primary care physicians are being reasonably compensated by medicaid?

Primary care physicians (internal medicine and family practice) tend to be liberal and are at the low end for compensation (think about $100,000 a year). Specialists, including surgeons tend to be more conservative and often make up to or over a million dollars a year.

Ya, the physicians have split into two groups. The A.M.A. now represents the more liberal phsyicans, who tend to be primary care. The more conservative docs, often specialists, have migrated to a professional association that reflects their views, I forget the name.

Stella_Guru wrote:Obama's health plan is very much like a plan first presented by Tricky Dick back in the early '70s.

Nixon was the a professional politician, so he's sort of weird in that way, captured in an era of huge, "fundamental" transition (in institutionalizing leftist thought). If one removes ideology from their noggin and look at things back the structurally, in historic context, it's pretty simple the procession. But then again, isn't all history?

Ted Kennedy

OMG! You didn't just capitalize the self proclaimed "Tyrannosaurus Sex" did you? The kennedys were little more than pollution, vile, misogynistic pollution.

Huckleby wrote:So what? How is that even relevant to a discussion about whether primary care physicians are being reasonably compensated by medicaid?

I thought we were talking about teachers and snow plow drivers?Doesn't all decreases in increases (aka "cuts") mean teachers not teaching children or police or firefighters? Where do other government workers come into this discussion of government reimbursement/pay?

With regard to the outflanking of the primary care guys. Once this is in place it seems insourcing will eventually take care of extreme labor costs with regard to the subspecialties. http://www.economist.com/node/21556228

It seems that some changes are on the way for the health care consumer.

Saw a TV report on the Colorado massacre shooting victims, some who have no health insurance. Their medical bills are already in the tens of thousands of dollars each. Probably will reach into six figures or even more.

Henry Vilas wrote:Saw a TV report on the Colorado massacre shooting victims, some who have no health insurance. Their medical bills are already in the tens of thousands of dollars each. Probably will reach into six figures or even more.

I just came across this story:

To say it's been a harrowing ordeal for the young couple is an understatement. But their situation became even more intense when doctors told Katie Medley that her husband's medical bills could exceed $2 million,

It would seem a business executive’s dream: legally pay a competitor to keep its product off the market for years.

Congress has failed to stop it, and for more than a decade generic drug makers and big-name pharmaceutical companies have been winning court rulings that allowed it.

Until this month. On July 16, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia issued a decision that the arrangement is anticompetitive on its face. It potentially sets up a confrontation before the United States Supreme Court. If it were to accept the case, the outcome could profoundly affect drug prices and health care costs.

I never thought I'd see the day the Republicans had trouble staying in lockstep. That was always their saving grace. No matter what happened they'd circle and lower horns, and NOTHIN got through. Nothing.

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to examine the constitutionality of the health reform law’s employer requirements and mandatory coverage of contraceptives without a co-pay.

The move could open the door for President Barack Obama’s health law to be back in front of the Supreme Court late next year.

Since some religions hold that blood transfusions violate their basic tenets, does it mean that they too should not have to obey the law and provide coverage for their employees?